I remember reading the Madhupindika Sutta (Honeyball Sutta) and described within is papañca, and it describes how this type of rumination causes a lot of anixety. conflict, and stress. What are some things the Buddha discusses about papañca (aside from what I've mentioned)?

1. I heard thus. At one time the Blessed One lived in the squirrels' sanctuary in the bamboo grove in Rajagaha.

2. Monks, I will tell you the proper dispelling of all mental ramblings, listen to it carefully.

3. Monks, what is the method for the proper dispelling of all mental ramblings?

4-6. Here, monks, the monk does not think it's, the eye, it's through and from the eye or it's mine. He does not think it's a form, it's through or from forms, or it's mine. He does not think it's eye-consciousness, it's through and from eye-consciousness, or it's mine. He does not think it's eye-contact, it's through and from eye-contact or it's mine and he does not think it is through and from whatever feelings, pleasant unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of eye-contact, or they are mine. Repeat for the ear and nose.

7-8. Monks, the monk does not think it's, the tongue, it's through and from the tongue or it's mine. He does not think it's a taste, it's through and from tastes or it's mine. He does not think it's tongue-consciousness, it's through and from tongue-consciousness or it's mine. He does not think it's tongue-contact, it's through and from tongue-contact or it's mine and he does not think it is through and from feelings, pleasant unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of tongue contact and he does not think they are mine. Repeat for the body.

9. Monks, the monk does not think it's, the mind, it's through or from the mind or it's mine. He does not think it's an idea, it's through and from ideas or it's mine. He does not think it's mind-consciousness, it's through and from mind-consciousness or it's mine. He does not think it's mind-contact, it's through or from mind-contact or it's mine and he does not think it's through and from whatever feelings, pleasant unpleasant or neither unpleasant nor pleasant born of mind-contact, and he does not think they are mine.

10. Monks, he does not think of all, does not think through and from all and he does not think all is mine.

11. Not thinking he does not hold to anything in the world and not worried about that, is appeased from within. He knows, birth is destroyed, the holy life is lived to the end, duties are done, I have nothing more to wishû

12. Monks, this is the method for the proper dispelling of all mental ramblings.

Its good to ask questions — that is the karmic cause of intelligence, but if you ask too many without doing any deep thinking for yourself, it will give you spiritual indigestion. This kind of endless questioning for the sake of it, is itself a kind of papañca.

DN 21 - Sakka-pañha Sutta: Sakka's QuestionsExcerpt:………. "Thinking has the perceptions & categories of objectification[1] as its cause, has the perceptions & categories of objectification as its origination, has the perceptions & categories of objectification as what gives it birth, has the perceptions & categories of objectification as its source. When the perceptions & categories of objectification exist, thinking comes into being. When the perceptions & categories of objectification are not, it doesn't.""And how has he practiced, dear sir: the monk who has practiced the practice leading to the right cessation of the perceptions & categories of objectification?" .....................http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... ml#papanca

with mettaChris

---The trouble is that you think you have time------Worry is the Interest, paid in advance, on a debt you may never owe------It's not what happens to you in life that is important ~ it's what you do with it ---

Bhikkhu Pesala wrote:Its good to ask questions — that is the karmic cause of intelligence, but if you ask too many without doing any deep thinking for yourself, it will give you spiritual indigestion. This kind of endless questioning for the sake of it, is itself a kind of papañca.

Practice more, read less, and read more slowly.

Of course, Bhante, but I asked about it because this papañca has arisen before in my meditation, and without taking time to carefully understand it I won't be able to find out what is causing it. This is where knowledge and taking time to understand the causes and conditions of arising becomes really important. Taking time to become aware of the mental states and what causes them to arise is how one can get rid of the papañca, and the conditions that are causing it, but if I don't fully understand it holistically, I can only half address it.

Papanca arises WITF...its part of the human condition. The point is to focus elsewhere...not " understand it" you will never run out of papanca...you can switch your attention however. You are assuming that papanca runs on logic...in fact it is more like an old computer programme. Just return to the object.

PeterB wrote:Papanca arises WITF...its part of the human condition. The point is to focus elsewhere...not " understand it" you will never run out of papanca...you can switch your attention however. You are assuming that papanca runs on logic...in fact it is more like an old computer programme. Just return to the object.

If I can't fully understand the drawbacks, nor understand the extent or content of the thought being a fabrication, it'll keep coming up no matter how many times I try to go back to concentrate, so it is really important to understand it. Plus, I am not all that attached to the human condition. It's rather stressful.

Well you wont. And even if you do your discursive mind will throw up more papanca. Its a papanca machine...thats what it does. Its a wonderful servant and a very bad master.The way to transcend Papanca is via states of absoption. Not by tracing them back to their source.

Papanca can arise out of cravings and aversions etc in my opinion (I seem to recall a sutta somewhere..). The root craving (for example) gives rise to mental ramblings and ramifications because it is so attached to its object and want to 'spend time with it' It ends up creating even more things to get attached to (ideas, concepts) and these end up in world views.

Great book. I read it on Retro's advice awhile ago and agree it is a major work. Re-read Honeyball last week and noticed a few things I missed. One is that he answers in a way I haven't seen before, and then walks offstage. Interesting! A wanderer comes up and asks a question which in other suttas might be met with the standard reply. But here he says "[I teach] the sort of doctrine...where one does not keep quarreling with anyone...where perceptions no longer obsess the Brahman who remains dissociated from sensuality, free from perplexity...(I can learn from that!)When asked to explain he does not reply in his usual manner. Instead we get a direct statement, paraphrased as: "...with regard to whereby the perceptions and categories of "objectification" assail a person there is nothing there to relish, to fasten to, that itself is the end of the "obsessions" of views, uncertainty, conceit...this is where these unskillful things cease..." and then he goes to bed! I love that. He leaves it up to Maha Kaccana to answer the disoriented monks. But there is a twist. We get a slightly different reply--not the stock answer found many times over. This time the chain is altered slightly. My paraphrase: "What one perceives, one thinks about and objectifies...perceptions and categories of this manner proliferate and assail the senses with regard to past, present and future..." Why did the Buddha walk away? Why did he not answer in his usual manner? Fascinating. I'd like to think he let his statement stand as it was because any more talk about it would just be more Papanca.

Sometimes when you are in the presence of a great teacher the first reaction is to switch off and not digest what was bring said. I think the Buddha may have seen this happening seeing the glazed awe of his disciples, and decided to give them a little chunk for them to chew on, rather than an outpouring which they would easily forget- besides, it was close to bed time!!

As can happen during tonics time on a retreat, maybe everyone was sitting around the dark chocolate and marshmallows and began shooting the breeze, as opposed to discussing the Dhamma, whereupon the Buddha peace'd out.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting oneself one protects others? By the pursuit, development, and cultivation of the four establishments of mindfulness. It is in such a way that by protecting oneself one protects others.

"And how is it, bhikkhus, that by protecting others one protects oneself? By patience, harmlessness, goodwill, and sympathy. It is in such a way that by protecting others one protects oneself.- Sedaka Sutta [SN 47.19]

This was not a retreat. His followers knew him well. They were not eating chocolate. Why do you think he gave such a response, and then let someone else explain?Are there other suttas where we see this behavior, or is this the sole example?Studying the suttas for the information is nice, but to really understand they must be put into context. In this case I'd ask why the Buddha chose to teach in this manner. Why no parables? No allegories? He just says something and then walks away. Has anyone read any other suttas like this?